Pacella v. THC Realty Development, LP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pacella v. THC Realty Development, LP

295 A.D.2d 329, 743 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5740

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 3, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 329 (Pacella v. THC Realty Development, LP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pacella v. THC Realty Development, LP, 295 A.D.2d 329, 743 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated July 16, 2001, which denied their motion, in effect, for leave to reargue their prior motion for leave to file a supplemental bill of particulars.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue.

The plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as one for leave to renew a prior motion for leave to file a supplemental bill of particulars, was actually one for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Quinn v Menzel, 282 AD2d 513; Duffy v Wetzler, 260 AD2d 596). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated July 16, 2001, which denied their motion, in effect, for leave to reargue their prior motion for leave to file a supplemental bill of particulars.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue.

The plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as one for leave to renew a prior motion for leave to file a supplemental bill of particulars, was actually one for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Quinn v Menzel, 282 AD2d 513; Duffy v Wetzler, 260 AD2d 596). Ritter, J.P., Florio, Goldstein, Luciano and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 329, 743 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacella-v-thc-realty-development-lp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack